Re: [PATCH v11 5/5] drm/amdgpu: add drm buddy support to amdgpu

On 08/02/2022 11:20, Arunpravin wrote:

On 04/02/22 6:53 pm, Christian König wrote:

...

Am 04.02.22 um 12:22 schrieb Arunpravin:

...

On 28/01/22 7:48 pm, Matthew Auld wrote:

...

On Thu, 27 Jan 2022 at 14:11, Arunpravin Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com wrote:

...

• Remove drm_mm references and replace with drm buddy functionalities
• Add res cursor support for drm buddy

v2(Matthew Auld): - replace spinlock with mutex as we call kmem_cache_zalloc (..., GFP_KERNEL) in drm_buddy_alloc() function

- lock drm_buddy_block_trim() function as it calls
  mark_free/mark_split are all globally visible

v3(Matthew Auld): - remove trim method error handling as we address the failure case at drm_buddy_block_trim() function

v4: - fix warnings reported by kernel test robot lkp@intel.com

v5: - fix merge conflict issue

v6: - fix warnings reported by kernel test robot lkp@intel.com

Signed-off-by: Arunpravin Arunpravin.PaneerSelvam@amd.com

drivers/gpu/drm/Kconfig | 1 + .../gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_res_cursor.h | 97 +++++-- drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_ttm.h | 7 +- drivers/gpu/drm/amd/amdgpu/amdgpu_vram_mgr.c | 259 ++++++++++-------- 4 files changed, 231 insertions(+), 133 deletions(-)

<snip>

...

-/**

• • amdgpu_vram_mgr_virt_start - update virtual start address
• • @mem: ttm_resource to update
• • @node: just allocated node
• • Calculate a virtual BO start address to easily check if everything is CPU
• • accessible.
• */

-static void amdgpu_vram_mgr_virt_start(struct ttm_resource *mem,

•                                  struct drm_mm_node *node)
  

-{

•   unsigned long start;
  

•   start = node->start + node->size;
  

•   if (start > mem->num_pages)
  

•           start -= mem->num_pages;
  

•   else
  

•           start = 0;
  

•   mem->start = max(mem->start, start);
  

-}

• /**
  • amdgpu_vram_mgr_new - allocate new ranges

@@ -366,13 +357,13 @@ static int amdgpu_vram_mgr_new(struct ttm_resource_manager *man, const struct ttm_place *place, struct ttm_resource **res) {

•   unsigned long lpfn, num_nodes, pages_per_node, pages_left, pages;
  

•   unsigned long lpfn, pages_per_node, pages_left, pages, n_pages;
  

•   u64 vis_usage = 0, mem_bytes, max_bytes, min_page_size;
      struct amdgpu_vram_mgr *mgr = to_vram_mgr(man);
      struct amdgpu_device *adev = to_amdgpu_device(mgr);
  

•   uint64_t vis_usage = 0, mem_bytes, max_bytes;
  

•   struct ttm_range_mgr_node *node;
  

•   struct drm_mm *mm = &mgr->mm;
  

•   enum drm_mm_insert_mode mode;
  

•   struct amdgpu_vram_mgr_node *node;
  

•   struct drm_buddy *mm = &mgr->mm;
  

•   struct drm_buddy_block *block;
      unsigned i;
      int r;
  
  

@@ -391,10 +382,9 @@ static int amdgpu_vram_mgr_new(struct ttm_resource_manager *man, goto error_sub; }

•   if (place->flags & TTM_PL_FLAG_CONTIGUOUS) {
  

•   if (place->flags & TTM_PL_FLAG_CONTIGUOUS)
              pages_per_node = ~0ul;
  

•           num_nodes = 1;
  

•   } else {
  

•   else {
  

  #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE pages_per_node = HPAGE_PMD_NR; #else

@@ -403,11 +393,9 @@ static int amdgpu_vram_mgr_new(struct ttm_resource_manager *man, #endif pages_per_node = max_t(uint32_t, pages_per_node, tbo->page_alignment);

•           num_nodes = DIV_ROUND_UP_ULL(PFN_UP(mem_bytes), pages_per_node);
      }
  
  

•   node = kvmalloc(struct_size(node, mm_nodes, num_nodes),
  

•                   GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_ZERO);
  

•   node = kzalloc(sizeof(*node), GFP_KERNEL);
      if (!node) {
              r = -ENOMEM;
              goto error_sub;
  

@@ -415,9 +403,17 @@ static int amdgpu_vram_mgr_new(struct ttm_resource_manager *man,

      ttm_resource_init(tbo, place, &node->base);

•   mode = DRM_MM_INSERT_BEST;
  

•   INIT_LIST_HEAD(&node->blocks);
  

•     if (place->flags & TTM_PL_FLAG_TOPDOWN)
  

•           mode = DRM_MM_INSERT_HIGH;
  

•           node->flags |= DRM_BUDDY_TOPDOWN_ALLOCATION;
  

•   if (place->fpfn || lpfn != man->size)
  

•           /* Allocate blocks in desired range */
  

•           node->flags |= DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION;
  

•   min_page_size = mgr->default_page_size;
  

•   BUG_ON(min_page_size < mm->chunk_size);
  
      pages_left = node->base.num_pages;
  
  

@@ -425,36 +421,61 @@ static int amdgpu_vram_mgr_new(struct ttm_resource_manager *man, pages = min(pages_left, 2UL << (30 - PAGE_SHIFT));

      i = 0;

•   spin_lock(&mgr->lock);
      while (pages_left) {
  

•           uint32_t alignment = tbo->page_alignment;
  

•             if (pages >= pages_per_node)
  

•                   alignment = pages_per_node;
  

•           r = drm_mm_insert_node_in_range(mm, &node->mm_nodes[i], pages,
  

•                                           alignment, 0, place->fpfn,
  

•                                           lpfn, mode);
  

•           if (unlikely(r)) {
  

•                   if (pages > pages_per_node) {
  

•                           if (is_power_of_2(pages))
  

•                                   pages = pages / 2;
  

•                           else
  

•                                   pages = rounddown_pow_of_two(pages);
  

•                           continue;
  

•                   }
  

•                   goto error_free;
  

•                   pages = pages_per_node;
  

•           n_pages = pages;
  

•           if (place->flags & TTM_PL_FLAG_CONTIGUOUS) {
  

•                   n_pages = roundup_pow_of_two(n_pages);
  

•                   min_page_size = (u64)n_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
  

•                   if (n_pages > lpfn)
  

•                           lpfn = n_pages;
              }
  
  

•           vis_usage += amdgpu_vram_mgr_vis_size(adev, &node->mm_nodes[i]);
  

•           amdgpu_vram_mgr_virt_start(&node->base, &node->mm_nodes[i]);
  

•           mutex_lock(&mgr->lock);
  

•           r = drm_buddy_alloc_blocks(mm, (u64)place->fpfn << PAGE_SHIFT,
  

•                                      (u64)lpfn << PAGE_SHIFT,
  

•                                      (u64)n_pages << PAGE_SHIFT,
  

•                                      min_page_size,
  

•                                      &node->blocks,
  

•                                      node->flags);
  

•           mutex_unlock(&mgr->lock);
  

•           if (unlikely(r))
  

•                   goto error_free_blocks;
  

•             pages_left -= pages;
              ++i;
  
              if (pages > pages_left)
                      pages = pages_left;
      }
  

•   spin_unlock(&mgr->lock);
  

•   /* Free unused pages for contiguous allocation */
  

•   if (place->flags & TTM_PL_FLAG_CONTIGUOUS) {
  

•           u64 actual_size = (u64)node->base.num_pages << PAGE_SHIFT;
  

•           mutex_lock(&mgr->lock);
  

•           drm_buddy_block_trim(mm,
  

•                                actual_size,
  

•                                &node->blocks);
  

•           mutex_unlock(&mgr->lock);
  

•   }
  

•   list_for_each_entry(block, &node->blocks, link)
  

•           vis_usage += amdgpu_vram_mgr_vis_size(adev, block);
  

•   block = list_first_entry_or_null(&node->blocks,
  

•                                    struct drm_buddy_block,
  

•                                    link);
  

•   if (!block) {
  

•           r = -ENOENT;
  

•           goto error_free_res;
  

•   }
  

•   node->base.start = amdgpu_node_start(block) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
  

Hmm, does this work? It looks like there are various places checking that res->start + res->num_pages <= visible_size, which IIUC should only return true when the entire object is placed in the mappable portion. i915 is doing something similar. Also it looks like ttm_resource_compat() is potentially relying on this, like when moving something from non-mappable -> mappable in amdgpu_bo_fault_reserve_notify()?

Perhaps something like:

if (vis_usage == num_pages) base.start = 0; else base.start = visible_size;

Otherwise I guess just keep amdgpu_vram_mgr_virt_start()?

hmm, I wonder how it works, may be we didn't go through the corner case where res->start + res->num_pages > visible_size

in amdgpu if AMDGPU_GEM_CREATE_CPU_ACCESS_REQUIRED flag is enabled, we set the ttm_place.lpfn = visible_pfn at amdgpu_bo_placement_from_domain(). Hence, in amdgpu_vram_mgr_new() function DRM_BUDDY_RANGE_ALLOCATION flag is enabled, which calls the alloc_range_bias() in drm_buddy.c.

Here we get blocks chained together in random order complying visible_pfn range. say for instance num_pages = 13 we may get, Block 1 addr - 500 (order-3) Block 2 addr - 400 (order-2) Block 3 addr - 600 (order-0)

I think currently base.start = Block 1 start address fetched from the list and the address 500 assigned to it, which is good for the resource access since we access the blocks using the list link

But for the check res->start + res->num_pages <= visible_size in few places, this doesn't work. AFAIK, keeping amdgpu_vram_mgr_virt_start() doesn't work since the function looks for nodes in continuous address to calculate the start address. AFAIK, assigning the start address (400 + num_pages <= visible_size) mislead in our case since we use linked list

how about replacing the check with a bool type return function which checks the each block start address + block size <= visible_size?

Yeah, we already have that in the TTM code. It's just not used everywhere IIRC.

Hi Christian, here we have a problem, many places in ttm and amdgpu, we are using the tbo->resource->start + bo->resource->num_pages operation, this doesn't work in case of drm buddy since it allocates blocks in different locations which are chained together using linked list.

AFAICT that was already the case with the existing code, since it looks like you can get an array of discontinuous drm_mm blocks. amdgpu_vram_mgr_virt_start() looks to be handling that by creating fake/virtual res->start offset, which is effectively the maximum end pfn over the range of drm_mm blocks(whilst also accounting for num_pages), and yes if there are multiple blocks then the res->start might be more of a "virtual" offset. AFAIK that scheme should also work as-is with the buddy.

...

The node->start can just be set to the invalid offset for now and should be removed as soon as we don't need it any more.

Assigning the start block offset to resource->start doesn't work, If we set node->start to invalid offset, we get an incorrect value?

...

Regards, Christian.